Friday, June 20, 2008

Take my Freedom and my Appetite

I took the day off to spend time with my Mom who's visiting. While the grandmonster -- with whom I'm stuck, so his mom can... -- watches a movie, and mom and I sip our Irish cream and cofee, I'm watching C-Span. What a fucking crock of SHIT! !!!

I keep hearing "Bi partisan."

Of course they aren't talking about FISA, The "Freedom is Superfluous Act." It's about something else, but it seems to me as though there's an effort to grease the skids to get the illegal wiretapping bill through. That if you stand up for the Constitution and fight for the Rule of Law, you'll get labeled as some kind of partisan, or a new favorite of the refuckyoucans: a Nazi Appeaser.

The real Nazi appeasers are the fuck sticks voting for the fuck stain defiling the White House. Like Pete Hoekstra (refuckyoucan, MI) who's defending this piece of batshit insanity (via taped interview). "Bi partisan, bi partisan, bi partisan..." Gag me! I'm supposed to find comfort in the fact that the Dems are complicit in the death of democracy? I don't find a whole lot of consolation in the fact that the kid answering the phone yesterday assured me that Jim McDermott is going to vote against it, but at least someone has a brain in their head.

So next week this capitulation goes to the senate floor: where such stalwarts of democracy as Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell (who both still defend their vote to violate international law by invading Iraq) reside. I wonder where Barack will be when it gets there..? Will he show some balls?

You don't have to take my word on any of this. Go read Glenn Greenwald. (H/t Suzan at Pottersville) Keep your eye on Crooks and Liars; I'm sure they will eventually have the clip from Keith O and Jonathon Turley from last night.

In the mean time, Mom's offered to buy me breakfast, but I'm not sure how much I'll be able to eat.

2 comments:

Speaking of the Constitution, keep an eye out Monday for the decision of District of Columbia Vs. Heller. In case you don't know, it is a case of whether or not the government has the right to ban guns, basically. IN D.C. it is illegal for citizens to own guns. The case was started by a guy whose attorneys basically said, "How can you say he has the right to carry a gun to work to protect you guys (he is a security guard at a government building), but can't carry a gun to protect himself at home?"

They basically have to rule on whether the second amendment applies to an individual right, or a collective/militia right.

Should be very interesting.

The fucked up part is, the very government making this decision, is the exact government that the second was made to protect us against.

I Confess:

I'm tempted to resurrect this blog, but I'm well aware of my own laziness and lack of ability to follow though on things. BUT... Weak or strong, loud or faint, can there really be too many voices against the wave of fascism that has given rise to Trump as president?